Quote of the week: "We'd be in a lot less wars, and have a lot more liberty if we taught our kids (and soldiers) to recite the Declaration of Independence [instead of the Pledge of Allegiance].

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

Agreed, Anna! Really that's more like the "Pledge of Rebellion," and those who say and believe it assert their right to rebel against tyranny and their pledge that they will when government "becomes destructive to these ends." We need a lot less allegiance and a lot more rebellion in this age of tyranny!

Here's your "Hope" and "Change." We've got a Democratic president in office who campaigned on a platform of cleaning up the mess Bush made, and instead he auto-signs the (un)Patriot(ic) Act into law. Here's your America:

From my most recent CAIVN column: 'Many members of the rapidly growing and increasingly discontented Independent voter bloc might be libertarians, voters who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal" (or tolerant). These voters would prefer lower taxes and a more "hands off" approach from government on the one hand, and an equally "hands off" approach from government regarding social issues and personal choices on the other hand.'

Michael Nystrom notes at The Daily Paul: "Iran came under attack in 1953 when it’s elected leader wanted to trade oil in something other than dollars. Saddam Hussein came under our attack at the exact time he wanted to stop trading oil in dollars. And now Gaddafi wants to stop trading oil in dollars and look what happened to him."

The Guardian reports: 'Armed westerners have been filmed on the front line with rebels near Misrata in the first apparent confirmation that foreign special forces are playing an active role in the Libyan conflict.

A group of six westerners are clearly visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of the town of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes, peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

The sixth, apparently the most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer. The group is seen talking to rebels and then quickly leaving on being spotted by the television crew...

There have been numerous reports in the British press that SAS soldiers are acting as spotters in Libya to help Nato warplanes target pro-Gaddafi forces. In March, six special forces soldiers and two MI6 officers were detained by rebel fighters when they landed on an abortive mission to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, in an embarrassing episode for the SAS.

The group was withdrawn soon afterwards and a new "liaison team" sent in its place. Asked for comment on Monday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We don't have any forces out there."

The subject is sensitive as the UN security council resolution in March authorising the use of force in Libya specifically excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".

Despite more than two months of bombing by Nato, rebels have remained unable to advance west of Misrata, or west of Brega, 300 miles to the east. The capital, Tripoli, also remains in the grip of Gaddafi, who has defied all attempts to force him to leave.'

Monday, May 30, 2011

If you're psyched about the Ron Paul Moneybomb on June 5th, here's what you should do... If you're planning on spacing out your donations over the course of Ron Paul's campaign. Don't. Sit down right now and calculate how much you plan to give in total by the end of the campaign next year. Instead of holding back for future moneybombs, donate that FULL AMOUNT this June 5th at RonPaul2012.com.

"Flag Decal" by John Prine: "And your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore-- they're already overcrowded from your dirty little war. Now Jesus don't like killin' no matter what the reason's for, and your flag decal won't get you in the heaven anymore!"

While remembering our fallen soldiers this Memorial Day, I thought it would be appropriate to share this song which has long been a favorite of mine, by the progressive rock band, Enchant. It's entitled "Under Fire" and it's about a veteran who's haunted by his guilt when he remembers a fallen soldier on the other side-- who he killed.

Lyrics follow:

I'm under fire blood red sky
Underneath the war machine
Fight for what's right don't ask why
Just make the sacrifice
Desensitized but my eyes
Still recognize the pain
Truth stark and real fight or die
Retreat has no place in this game
In the dark and under fire
Believing our cause was justified
Caught in the crosshairs condition dire
Trying a case of do or die
In the blink of an eye
I took someone's life
It's no wonder why
I'm hunted by it still
Bright Flickering light snubbed by my numbing hands
Don't understand
One finger slip and it's over for him
All's fair in war so they say
But later as I try to sleep
I just can't help but replay
When I sat in as deity
Was this man a loving father?
Was this man a loving son?
Though it was one of us or the other
I don't feel like a lucky one
In the blink of an eye
I took someone's life
It's no wonder why
I'm hunted every night
I still hear his cries
And think about his wife and his kids
And all that he could have been
If only we'd have been friends
In a blink of an eye

'Twain wrote The War Prayer during the US war on the Philippines. It was submitted for publication, but on March 22, 1905, Harper's Bazaar rejected it as "not quite suited to a woman's magazine." Eight days later, Twain wrote to his friend Dan Beard, to whom he had read the story, "I don't think the prayer will be published in my time. None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth." Because he had an exclusive contract with Harper & Brothers, Mark Twain could not publish "The War Prayer" elsewhere and it remained unpublished until 1923.'

The War Prayer by Mark Twain:

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams – visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation – "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory.

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal," Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause)

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

The actual headline of the Associated Press piece featured on The Drudge Report today is: "Memorial Day comes as troops fight in Afghanistan." In it, Jon Gambrell reports from Kabul:

'U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan paused Monday to remember the fallen in Memorial Day services, as a war nearly a decade old trudges on.

Some prayed and held flag-raising ceremonies at dawn to recognize the more than 1,400 killed in combat here since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that triggered the war.

"We reflect on those who have gone before us. We reflect on their service and their sacrifice on behalf of our great nation," said Brig. Gen. Lewis A. Craparotta, who commands a Marine division in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province. "We should also remember those serving today who embody that same commitment of service and sacrifice. They are committed to something greater than themselves and they muster the physical and moral courage to accomplish extraordinary feats in battle."

In Iraq, an estimated 46,000 U.S. troops remain stationed there though officials say combat operations are over in a nation that saw more than 4,400 American troops die in combat. Under an agreement between Washington and Baghdad, the troops still in Iraq must leave by Dec. 31.'

Adding:

'Increasingly skeptical American and Afghan publics question why U.S. and NATO forces remain there. The Taliban recently begun its spring offensive, as suicide bombings, roadside explosions and attacks in remote posts have returned with a frightening regularity.'

That's how much establishment candidate Mitt Romney raised in one day a couple of weeks ago from well-heeled party bigwigs for his 2012 White House bid.

So today, I'm writing to personally ask if you are up for a challenge.

My campaign's grassroots supporters are holding another Money Bomb next Sunday, June 5th, and I believe it offers us an excellent chance to make some headlines of our own.

You see, the Romney campaign thinks no one else can touch their accomplishment.

But honestly, I don't need 10 million dollars to match Mitt Romney.

After all, I don't have to defend a liberal record as governor of Massachusetts.

I don't have to defend against passing a bill just as bad as ObamaCare. Mitt Romney does. So it's ok if he has a bit more money than we do.

He's going to need it!

But it is absolutely critical I have the financial backing to build a first-class operation in early caucus and primary states and show the pundits and press that I am a serious candidate.

I know these so-called "gate keepers" are part of the Washington problem, but the fact is their either dismissing of candidates or praising them makes a difference to many undecided voters.

An overwhelming showing on June 5th would force the establishment pundits to realize you and I are in this to win it!

So please, visit www.RonPaul2012.com on June 5th and contribute whatever you are able. I know times are tough, but each and every dollar will go toward implementing our plans to run a first-class, winning campaign to restore America now.

Support for my Presidential campaign is growing every day, and I'm hopeful that we are in time to save America, rebuild our economy, and hand our children an even better country than the one we inherited.

And on June 5th, we can demonstrate the strength of support for our freedom message.

If you can help my campaign really take off now with a contribution at www.RonPaul2012.com on June 5th, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Your donation will allow us to ramp up our efforts in all the key primary states right away. That's why political experts say that $1 now is worth as much as $5 later on.

And it would prove that our campaign doesn't need fat cat bankers and rich elitists to compete.

When our R3VOLUTION comes together, there is no limit to what we can accomplish, and it is a great source of encouragement to know I can count on you.

Thank you for all your support!

For Liberty,
Ron Paul

P.S. The other candidates have their corporate establishment Big Money donors. They have their lobbyists and their PACs. Mitt Romney used his insider rolodex - thick with Wall Street bankers - to raise 10 million dollars for his campaign.

And his campaign has thrown down the gauntlet by saying they don't think anyone else can touch their accomplishment.

Patriots like you can help me fight back with a massive Money Bomb on June 5th.

So please visit www.RonPaul2012.com on June 5th and contribute as generously as you can!

Sunday, May 29, 2011

A very good friend of mine whose opinion I value very much called me up today to tell me he wasn't very impressed with today's article detailing Eric Dondero's prolific support for big-government liberals in the Republican Party, and noting the irony that Dondero accuses antiwar libertarians of being "leftists" who don't really care about liberty.

My friend had a big problem with my tone. He told me that I shouldn't sink to Dondero's level by name-calling and personally smearing him. I definitely took issue with his appraisal of my post as sinking to Dondero's level. What Dondero does, certainly is name calling. Without much substantive argument over the relationship between liberty and geopolitics, Dondero simply writes us off as "left libertarians," "leftists," and "anti-American." But I don't think I simply turned around and did the same back to him.

As one libertarian Facebook friend of mine pointed out... I actually gave Dondero a lot of exposure by writing the post. That I did. I linked to several of his posts, and quoted his own words. I let Mr. Dondero speak for himself, piling quote upon quote of his own words for you to read and links to the original articles for you to investigate yourself and get the full context if you wanted to. I'd love it if he did the same for me. I'd love for any blogger who is critical of my views to be so fair as to quote and link to me meticulously. I think there's a huge difference between dismissive name calling and smearing on the one hand, and quoting a person's actual words, referring my readers to their work, and giving my appraisal.

Dondero says: Wes is a leftist libertarian, anti-American, and a leftist lover. I on the other hand, said: Here is what Dondero has said himself in the past. Here is who he's endorsed. This is their record in government... and then I offer my conclusion on the basis of his own words and endorsements on his own website. I defended my article to my friend on this basis and argued that it was not at all "on the same level" as Dondero's rhetoric and that it's not name-calling either. I accurately reported his views using his own words to show that liberty is not at all his primary concern. I do this every week with other politicians and pundits.

My friend didn't like that the post was so personal, but I don't think it was personal and if I gave that impression, let me clarify that I didn't mean it personally. I am not trying to discredit Dondero as a person (whatever that would even mean), but I definitely am hoping to discredit him as a libertarian voice on news and politics just as I have used this blog to discredit Barack Obama as a Washington reformer and Herman Cain as a Tea Party candidate. Like Dondero, they are being disingenuous and good journalism requires reporting those inconsistencies to the public.

Now I did admit this to my friend and I will admit it to you. I certainly relished writing that post way too much... and it apparently showed... and I really shouldn't have enjoyed it so much. It's petty and small to enjoy someone else's incorrectness, hypocrisy, ignorance or even malevolence. And I do freely admit that I am sometimes, or perhaps even often, petty and small. The flesh is weak. I'll try to be better about it in the future. Thanks for bearing with me if you were put off as my friend was.

EDIT: My friend also said I missed a good opportunity to opine about the uselessness and confusion of labels like "left" and "right." He was correct.

ERIC DONDERO: "I gotta say smething off-topic. This website has gotten so much worse in the last few months, and few weeks. It has digressed into a cheerleader site for Leftists, and Anti-Americanism.

The Editor ought to consider changing its name to the Humble Leftist-Lover. There's very little left here that could be considered libertarian." (link)

Blogger Eric Dondero loves to label me a "leftist" because I have misgivings about open-ended commitments to nation building in other countries, you know: just like award-winning conservative columnist George Will, Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, even George W. Bush during his presidential candidacy in 2000 before he lost his freaking mind, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, President Ronald Reagan-- who put U.S. troops in harm's way extremely sparingly, America's fine men and women in uniform who donated more to the most ostensibly anti-war candidates, Barack Obama and Ron Paul than any other candidate in 2008, and oh yeah-- many of America's Founding Fathers and great military leaders.

Eric Dondero stands against all these great voices of American conservatism in his unyielding support for the progressive, Wilsonian doctrine of spreading democracy overseas at the expense of American blood and treasure, a view that only took hold among those so-called "conservative" journalists and pundits who were in fact Trotskyites that migrated to the conservative movement from the left. Dondero's perplexing, confused, and decidedly leftist view of the world is no more apparent than in the endorsements of political figures littered throughout his blog, LibertarianRepublican.net.

Take for instance, Dondero's support for liberal Senator John McCain, a man who joined the Democrats in voting for TARP, worked with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold to pass a campaign finance law which violates the Constitution, and was a media darling up until his nomination in 2008 for collaborating and voting so often with Democrats to increase the size, role, and influence of government.

In addition to laughably publishing an endorsement of the squishy, leftist John McCain for libertarians on his website, Dondero excitedly announced in February of 2009 that "The Mack is Back!" and gushed over McCain for criticizing Obama while-- again laughably-- actually asserting that "he's got the credibility to back it up."

Then there's Eric Dondero's inexplicable flirtation with the Mitt Romney candidacy. Remember that Mitt Romney's signature accomplishment as governor of Massachusetts was to pass "RomneyCare," a vast expansion of the welfare state that served as the model for ObamaCare. Romney is unmistakably a leftist, big government, Northeastern Republican along the lines of Olympia Snowe, not a true Jeffersonian conservative.

What has Dondero said about Mitt RINO on his blog? This April, he called it "very good news" for Republicans that Mitt Romney beat Obama in a New Hampshire poll and added, "for those of us Republicans concerned about making inroads into the Northeast, this is a very powerful argument for Romney's candidacy." Two days earlier, while acknowledging that Romney isn't a libertarian, but insanely suggesting that he's "almost a libertarian," Dondero wrote in a follow up comment that Romney "might be a Republican worthy of libertarian support." On what planet, Eric?

As far as liberal, northern politicians who masquerade as Republicans go, there's no better poster child than Rep. Paul Ryan (RINO-WI). Somehow he's known for being a fiscal conservative despite voting for the 2003 prescription drug benefit expansion to Medicare (one of the entitlement state's largest expansions since LBJ was president), the 2008 TARP bailout, the 2008 economic stimulus package, the $15B auto bailout, another $200B stimulus package in the summer of 2009, the expensive and unconstitutional nationalization of public education via No Child Left Behind, and most of the rest of Bush's deficit busting, big government agenda for eight years. What does Eric Dondero have to say about this welfare statist?

This April, Dondero's website crowned Paul Ryan "The Ultimate Libertarian Hero!" Seriously. Did you just read the paragraph above? Dondero wrote a few days later that "Ryan's budget plan has 'libertarian' elements." Yikes. That first article on Paul Ryan also said: "Ryan's budget plan is not a completely libertarian design to dismantle our statist system, but it's far more courageous and fair than anything offered by others."

Has anyone at Dondero's blog read anything about RAND PAUL'S budget or are they being deliberately ignorant in saying that no one has offered anything more courageous nor fair than Ryan's plan? To set the record straight about Paul Ryan's budget: "Ryan's plan would result in annual deficits of between 3.5 and 4.5 percent of GDP between now and somewhere after 2040, with a balanced budget coming only around 2063. This would add at least $62 trillion to the national debt over the period." Dondero's "libertarian elements" my foot.

Let me see-- who else? I could do this all day. Ah yes, Donald Trump. Take Eric Dondero's unabashed glorying in the faux-campaign of the undeniably leftist Donald Trump. All you have to do is follow Trump's money, and you'll learn quite quickly what a leftist he is. Thousands and thousands of dollars to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and some of the left's most radical Democrats like Charlie Rangel, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Anthony Weiner, and Harry Reid.

Is Donald Trump a leftist? Uhh... yeah. He is. Tens of thousands of dollars worth of leftist, not to mention endorsements of leftist Democrats. So surely, Eric Dondero would denounce the Donald for all his leftist-loving, right? Riight? Wrong.

Over the course of Trump's fake, media-whoring bid, Dondero's blog turned into one long love letter to the leftist Donald Trump. He published one post by Trump's 2000 Presidential Exploratory Committee Chairman, Roger Stone, entitled "A SURE REPUBLICAN WIN: TRUMP - WEST TICKET 2012." If you want a revealing look into the mind of Eric Dondero, visit that article and scroll through the 82-comment long discussion thread underneath it. Despite all indications that Trump is a big government leftist, Dondero fiercely supported him... because he was "sparkly." No joke:

What is it about libertarian policy wankers? Anything sparkling, exciting, inspiring, they fiercely oppose.

Hate Trump? Fine. Come up with another candidate that is just as much a celebrity, flashy, exciting and colorful.

(Why doesn't Dondero just support Obama?) And:

Sorry folks. If Obama taught us Republicans anything in '08, it's boring, dull, old and grey doesn't win us votes anymore with the American electorate.

EXCITE, EXCITE, EXCITE!!!! That should be the Number One qualification for a GOP candidate in 12.

Not even making it up. And:

Question for all you Libertarian Trump doubters.

Why was it all fine for Libertarians to heart Trump back in the 1990s, when he was being talked about as a possible LP presidential candidate, but now that he's a Republican, oh no, "Trump sucks," and "he's no libertarian, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!"

Hypocrites!

And the madness just goes on and on for 82 comments. Dondero doesn't care about conservative principles or credentials. It doesn't matter if the candidate will grow government. If they sparkle and excite, then he likes them. Without changing any of his other policy positions, all Obama would have to do is say he opposes radical "Islamo-Fascism" and stands with Israel and Eric Dondero would vote for Obama in 2012.

Want to know what made me lol?This post Dondero published in April gushing that Donald Trump "gets a nice Super-Sized endorsement from Top GOP Strategist." One problem: the "endorsement" came from Dick Morris, once a top Democratic strategist and longtime friend and adviser to Bill Clinton. Dondero just has a real knack for sniffing out so-called conservatives with the most odious and liberal possible pedigrees and then treating them like perfect exemplars of conservatism.

If I didn't think Eric Dondero is simply a wishy-washy, easily-led, very-excitable amateur blogger, I'd wonder if he wasn't deliberately trying to help the left hijack the conservative brand and the Republican Party with his record of pandering to leftists and selling them off as conservative to his unsuspecting readers.

The Money Quote:

But here's the money quote. Here's Dondero admitting in his own words that liberty is not his primary value in a comment thread on my website. The thing that drives Eric Dondero's political worldview, the one most important thing in his political agenda: is war with Muslims-- and liberty can take a back seat to that as far as he's concerned:

We are eager to win at virtually any cost. We have a foreign - born illegal alien radical Islamist in the White House.

ANYBODY!!! And I mean Anybody, including Hillary, Joe Biden, even Dennis friggin' Kucinich would be better than Barack Hussein Obama.

This guy is out to destroy this country. He is a former member of the Nation of Islam, aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Really, is it too much to ask to have an American be President of the United States of AMERICA!

Say what you want about Trump, and his failings. But the guy is 100% Pro-America.

Now fellow libertarian bloggers who are just as fed up as I am with being called leftists for supporting the truly libertarian, traditionally conservative position on U.S. foreign policy: please link to this post and include the text of Eric Dondero's name in your link in order to improve its search engine ranking. When people search for "eric dondero," I want this post to be one of the first things they read. I want to set the record straight once and for all so that everyone can see who the real leftist is.

The following video shows a kindergarten teacher in Mexico this Friday keeping a classroom full of school children calm as gunfire blasts can be heard outside. When will Congress end the War on Drugs which protects the drug cartel's profits and gives them the money to pay for these weapons? And if one of those children got hurt in this fire fight, to what extent would the Obama Administration, bear responsibility for it?

Saturday, May 28, 2011

A group of libertarian activists-- including Adam vs. The Man host, Adam Kokesh-- were arrested today for dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. to protest a recent court decision which actually upheld a ban on dancing at the memorial to one of America's most outspoken advocates for liberty and free expression.

They caught some incredible video footage of their confrontation with police, which is embedded below.

When an officer comes up to the group and asks them who their leader is, they laugh and point to the statue of Thomas Jefferson in the center of the memorial. Then after telling the libertarians that they can't dance, the officer turns to see a couple embracing and slowly swaying back and forth. At the officer's signal, two police immediately descend on the embracing couple and pull them apart, placing handcuffs on their wrists to arrest them:

By and large, the libertarian movement's filmed confrontations with police are quite frankly pretty lame and unable to draw much sympathy from this hardened, anti-police state libertarian, much less the general public. Participants-- usually from somewhere in New Hampshire-- all too often instigate conflicts with police unnecessarily over some awfully petty disagreements like the libertarian's unwillingness to give their name, or sometimes even over the libertarian actually trespassing on private property and refusing to leave in an expeditious fashion, like one embarrassing video I recently saw.

All too often, when there's no need for confrontation and no clear principle at stake, the libertarian will deliberately continue to escalate an encounter with the police until they're arrested, and then self-righteously behave like a martyr before getting their friends to go on the Internet and beg for money to give to the state to bail them out-- not quite what Gandhi or Thoreau did and taught.

But this video above is different. There was an important and deeply symbolic principle involved that most viewers could sympathize with. These libertarians were dancing at a memorial to one of liberty's most cherished defenders of free expression and resistance to tyranny. The setting was perfect. The stand they took against a ban on dancing was symbolically relevant and important. Their execution was excellent. Anybody watching the video could see who the "good guys" were and who the "bad guys" were.

Nobody sympathizes with a snotty hippy mouthing off to a police officer until he's arrested. Everybody watching this video can sympathize with a couple embracing in front of a memorial and swaying together as two uniformed thugs forcefully pull them apart and handcuff them. Everyone can sympathize with a group of young people dancing and actually being arrested for it.

To Adam Kokesh, Andrew Sharp, and my other friends and colleagues who participated in today's protest, my hat is off to all of you!

ACTION ITEM:
The libertarian activists are being held at Anacostia Station (District Five) - 1901 Anacostia Drive S. E., Washington, D.C. 20019 - If you feel so inclined, call (202) 610-8703 and demand their release. You can also call the US Park Police at 202-610-7500.

Remember last Spring when Rand Paul made his civil rights "gaffe" questioning parts of the Civil Rights Act that affected private business practices before quickly retreating from this position?

Many of you may argue my extraordinarily late analysis on this. But, at the time, I assumed he was told this simply wasn't a battle worth fighting right now, and to publicly move to the more populist view - strictly for political reasons.

So, here's my question. Could there be other closet libertarians in the GOP?

Recalling this circumstance from my now favorite Senator made me curious if any of the other GOP nomination "front runners" might be intellectually empathetic believers in the libertarian cause, and simply don't see it as a winnable platform to run on.

So I swore off caffeine ten days ago. How long have I been off the wagon? Since five days ago. Yup. That lasted exactly five days. My productivity just suffered waay too much. It was a good run though.

The last straw (after headaches galore) was early this Monday when a friend of mine told me that it was good that I could recognize my desperate addiction to caffeine and try to give it up, but that I have a tendency to go to extremes (which is true), and that maybe instead of absolutely no caffeine-- which was killing my head and this blog-- that I should just tone it down from multiple energy drinks a day to one or two caffeinated soft drinks.

After that one can of Coca Cola Monday, I sat down and wrote 10 Reasons Why Ron Paul Can Win in 2012, one of my longest pieces in recent days, which now has over 1000 Facebook likes. Think about that. Think about 1000 people. Just visualize that many people standing in front of you. That's a lot of people. That many people had this article on their Facebook walls telling their friends, "Hey friends, you should take Ron Paul seriously. He really might win! Here's how..."

Maybe instead of going to extremes, I should spend my life in the pursuit of happy mediums: no abstinence from caffeine, but no more extra strength 5-hour energy drinks to jolt me awake in the mornings before reaching for a Red Bull either... just one 12 oz. can of sugar free Coke and all the blog posts I can write...

Friday, May 27, 2011

"He's more machine now than man. His mind is twisted and evil." -Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

The Birthers have had it wrong all along. We don't need to see Obama's birth certificate-- we need to see his manufacturer's certificate of origin. It would appear that our nation's president is more than just a man... he's a cybernetic organism: part human, part machine.

We suspected as much from the very beginning. Instead of just letting the human part give speeches alone-- even at elementary school events-- the president relied on the machine part of itself, the Teleprompter to give those speeches. It couldn't let the imperfect, error-prone human part do the work. The machine half had to take over and flawlessly deliver those carefully crafted li(n)es.

After the recent passage of the Patriot Act, we learned just how given over to his machine half President Obama really is. Even with his human side overseas in France, the president was able to sign the Patriot Act the night it was passed by Congress, using an as yet unknown part of his machine self: the AutoPen.

The AutoPen is another machine part of Obama that signs his signature just as perfectly as if his human hand had signed it. Now there's no way that this AutoPen is a separate device, which is not part of Obama, otherwise, it would be totally unconstitutional to let it sign a bill into law for him. That's how we know Obama is a cyborg. Just read Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it..."

Since we know that it would be totally illegal for a machine to sign a bill into law, without the president even reading it, we can conclude that the AutoPen, like the Teleprompter, is actually a physical part of Obama. He's a cyborg, that just like Darth Vader, continues to lose more and more of his humanity to these robotic additions, which brings up a very important constitutional question:

Can cyborgs (so long as they were made in the United States of course) qualify to run for President of the United States? And was Obama really made here, or was he made in... Japan where they make all the robots?

Editor's note: Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could not be reached for comment.

The Huffington Postreports: "An ongoing exploration of the documents related to the Pentagon's 'message force multipliers' program has unearthed a clip of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that America, having voted the Democrats back into Congressional power, could benefit from suffering another terrorist attack, and doing so in the presence of the very same military analysts who went on to provide commentary and analysis of the Iraq War."

Here are Rumsfeld's words w/ HuffPo's emphasis added:

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...

Here, Rumsfeld has made a startling admission about his own worldview and that of policymakers like him and those media personalities who act as cheerleaders for neoconservatism:

The national security state they've built up, with the brand new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security; the TSA with all its sexual assaults and violations of the Fourth Amendment; the doctrine of preemptive war and the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians that resulted from it; the open-ended occupations of other countries... all of these things don't serve to keep us safe from terrorists. No-- not in Rumsfeld's twisted, neoconservative view of the world.

He admits here that terrorists serve as the scapegoat and justification for all of those things. The real goal isn't to keep us safe. The real goal is to keep us in chains and under surveillance, and if we get tired of it, if it doesn't make sense to us, if we want to change it... then the right "cure" for our "bad attitude" is another terrorist attack. Only then will we take terrorism seriously enough to put up with all this tyranny, waste, and bloodshed coming out of Washington.

Americans could benefit, in Rumsfeld's twisted view, from a good terrorist attack every once in a while. So much for actually wanting to keep Americans safe from terrorism.

Over at Young Americans for Liberty, Andrew Sharp has put together a time line, stretching back to the Patriot Act's temporary extension back in February, of Rand Paul's stand against it, and Harry Reid's cowardly, promise-breaking antics to get it renewed. Check it out here.

Though there are a few things about Freshman Congressman Allen West (R-FL) that worry me, I have to give the man credit where credit is due. He courageously voted "No" on the so-called "Patriot" Act extension yesterday:

'When Rep. Allen West said in his weekly newsletter that he was going to make a "careful assessment" on the Patriot Act extensions, it sounded like we could already pencil him in for a "yes" vote -- especially since he just recently voted for the 90-day extension.

It appears he was actually being serious about considering a vote against it.

West joined only 30 other House Republicans in voting "no" on extending three provisions in the Patriot Act...'

Allen West said this about his Patriot Act vote:

"I have spent the past two months investigating these provisions to the PATRIOT Act, their effect on American citizens and their impact on apprehending terrorists to better keep our country safe. After much reading, many briefings, and conversations with local law enforcement and federal agents, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, I am not fully convinced that by extending these provisions for four years, we would be any safer, but instead I fear they may only give us the illusion of being safer."

Mad props to Allen West for doing what any self-described Tea Party supporter should do, which is vote against bills that threaten our great American tradition of liberty, rule of law according to the Constitution, restraint on the powers of the executive, and due process for all Americans.

"Here's the exact opposite of Mitt Romney-a politician who changes his mind based on investigation and reflection instead of political opportunism. There is no obvious political benefit for West in doing this. Good for him. Take note conservatives."

In 2004, when the first mainstream Republican pundits began to openly question President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq, New York Times writer Franklin Foer penned an article entitled, “Once again, America First,” noting the dread specter of isolationism resurfacing on the Right. Foer was premature in seeing a resurgence of restraint but his article came to mind during the past week while watching the bipartisan consensus on Israel, particularly among the GOP.

The fiery reaction the president has received over last week’s speech at the State Department is centered around a single point, late in the speech, that the Israeli-Palestinian peace depends on the 1967 borders as a starting point.

Judging from the reaction, one could hardly be blamed if they thought that by saying “1967,” Obama had actually uttered, “To the gas chambers, go!”

On the one hand, it would seem the height of arrogance to tell another sovereign country that they need to trim their borders. One might think that on the other hand it would be equally arrogant for Netanyahu to suggest that the U.S. return the Gadsden Purchase as a way of placating Mexico in the drug wars, but so much of the American Southwest has already endured Reconquista without a peep from our media and political elites that we can already tell where their loyalties lie.

First of all, President Obama sticking his nose in the conflict is symptomatic of anyone who sees himself as the emperor of the world. Second of all, Obama’s remark about the 1967 borders should not have been the only part that angered the American public.

Taking the speech as a whole, Obama’s suggestion about the 1967 borders makes perfect sense, not because the speech led up to “selling out Israel,” but because in a wider context the speech was all about an American plan to re-make the Middle East in our image.

By saying, “. . . after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be,” Obama provided a textbook rejection of realism and took a seat comfortably next to Dubya as a delusional Wilsonian.

In Bush’s second inaugural address he stated that it was the goal of the United States to end tyranny in the world. Now Obama states his intention “to pursue the world as it should be” with “freedom of religion” and “equality for men and women.” He also praises Iraq for “the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy,” a mirage of a Muslim San Francisco.

But Republicans’ aping of the Israeli Lobby’s line shows their complete spinelessness and inability to lead. Obama’s speech basically reaffirmed all the major policies Republicans advocated under Bush so this is really just about scoring cheap political points.

Republicans had a chance to lead but chose kow-towing instead. Republicans could have said:

“Yes, returning to the 1967 borders may not be the ideal position for Israel but neither is it ideal for us to continue reflexively supporting Israel financially and militarily when American security and liberty is not imperiled by territorial disputes as old as the Bible itself. And when Prime Minister Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress that Israel is a nation already built and can defend itself he sent us a clear message: It’s time to close the foreign aid spigot. We would also like to leave Prime Minister Netanyahu with the words of one of our finest foreign ministers, John Quincy Adams: ‘Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.’”

But alas, no such address appears over the horizon.

Rather than putting America first, as Franklin Foer thought was happening, Bibi Netanyahu, whose thunderous reception at AIPAC and both houses of Congress should tell us what we need to know about those gangs, must be reassured that the gravy train is not ending anytime soon and that America is certainly not first in the minds of our leaders.